Weekly Legal Updates (8 Nov- 14 Nov 2019)

7 upvotes

0 comments

Updated : Nov 15, 2019, 14:56

By : Surajit Bhaduri

Dear Students,

In this post, we have covered the Legal updates of the second week of November (8 - 14 November) Weekly Legal Updates" series aims to provide important legal events and developments. These updates will help aspirants appearing for Law Entrance Exams.

1. CJI office comes under the ambit of RTI Act: Supreme Court

On 13th October, the Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act.

A five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising of Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the definition of "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance

The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance.

It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.

The Delhi High Court order

In a landmark verdict on January 10, 2010, the Delhi High Court had held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) law, saying judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibility cast upon him.

The 88-page judgment was then seen as a personal setback to the then CJI, KG Balakrishnan, who has been opposed to disclosure of information relating to judges under the RTI Act.

The case

The move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal.

His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".

About RTI Act 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 has a basic objective to reduce corruption in India and maintain transparency by giving citizens of India right to ask information regarding government operations.

RTI law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005.

The act also provides for a penalty to officers not giving information in time or giving false information.

Source: India Today

2. Justice Akil Kureshi appointed as Chief Justice of Tripura High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court.

Justice Akil Kureshi succeeds Justice Sanjay Karol.

Justice Sanjay Karol recently appointed as Chief justice of to the Patna High Court.

3. Justice Ravi Ranjan appointed as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Ravi Ranjan as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

On July 14, 2008, Justice Ranjan was promoted as an Additional Judge of Patna High Court.

Later on, he was appointed as a permanent Judge of Patna High Court on January 16, 2010.

4. Justice Muhammad Raffiq was sworn in as the Chief Justice of Meghalaya HC

On 13th October, Justice Muhammad Raffiq took oath as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court. Meghalaya Governor Tathagata Roy administered the oath of office and secrecy at Raj Bhavan in Shillong.

Justice Muhammad Raffiq succeeds Ajay Kumar Mittal who is now the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Justice Muhammad Raffiq is the eighth Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court.

Source: news on air

5. Justice AP Sahi sworn-in as Chief Justice of Madras High Court

Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi was sworn-in as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

Prior, Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi was the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.

Note:

The Madras High Court is the high court of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

6. Delhi HC judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal appointed CCI member

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, of the Delhi High Court, has been appointed as a Judicial Member in the Competition Commission of India by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, Government of India.

7.Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Ayodhya dispute

On 09th November a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Ayodhya dispute.

It was further noted that there was evidence from the Archaeological Society of India (ASI) report to conclude that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land.

There was a structure underlying the disputed structure, which was not an Islamic structure on which the said Babri Masjid was constructed.

The hearing in the Ayodhya case began after the mediation panel report suggested that the parties could not arrive at any settlement. The Court had earlier agreed to give mediation a chance and had set up a three-member mediation panel.

Former Supreme Court judge F.M.I. Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu were the members of the mediation panel, but unfortunately, the panel could not reach any settlement between the parties. The hearing in the case had lasted for 40 days.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The damage to the mosque and the eventual destruction on 6 December 1992 constituted a serious violation of the rule of law.

The Court held that Hindus have been in exclusive and unimpeded possession of the disputed site where they have continued worship and has thereby come to the conclusion that Hindus have proved exclusive possession over the disputed site.

On the evidence, it was found that the Muslim community could not prove they were in exclusive possession of the disputed site.

Reliefs -

Hindus - The Court directed the Centre to come up with a scheme envisaging the setting up of a trust, which would take possession of the disputed land and structure for construction of a temple.

Muslims - A suitable plot of land measuring five acres has been directed to be handed over to Sunni Waqf Board either by the Central Government or the State Government, to construct a Mosque at the allotted land.

8. Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, and Krishna Murari upheld the disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs who had tendered their resignation earlier this year.

However, the part of the order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly barring the former Congress and JD(S) MLAs from contesting elections for the duration of the Assembly, has been struck down.

The resignation of 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the coalition government in Karnataka. The MLAs were thereafter disqualified on grounds of defection by former Speaker, KR Ramesh.

The disqualified MLAs challenged their disqualification by the Speaker before the Supreme Court.

9.President's rule imposed in Maharashtra amid political impasse

On 12th November, President's Rule has been imposed in Maharashtra as the political stalemate continued in the State over government formation. President Ram Nath Kovind signed a proclamation imposing President's rule in Maharashtra under Article 356.

The Union Cabinet recommended President's rule in the state after Maharashtra GovernorBhagat Singh Koshyari submitted a report in this regard.

Despite getting a comfortable majority in the 288-member Maharastra Assembly, BJP -Shiv Sena combine which fought elections together could not reach the consensus over government formation in the sate.

Amid political deadlock between the two alliance partners, the Governor first invited the largest party BJP to form the government which was declined by the party.

The second-largest party Shiv Sena also failed to get letters of support from the NCP and the Congress. Later, Sharad Pawar-led NCP was asked to express its ability and willingness to stake claim to form a government.

The governor's report was examined by the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi which decided to recommend a proclamation under Article 356 (1), thereby imposing President's rule in Maharashtra and keeping the assembly in suspended animation.

In the assembly polls held last month, the BJP won 105 seats, followed by the Shiv Sena (56), the NCP (54) and the Congress (48) in the 288-member House. The BJP and Shiv Sena alliance got a comfortable majority but the two parted ways over sharing of power.

Note:

As per Article 356(1): "If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the President may by Proclamation.

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

Note:

The President's Rule can be revoked before the six-month period if a situation emerges for the formation of a stable government, the officials said.